NUREMBERG TRIALS

Greymouth Evening Star, 5 December 1945, Page 5

NUREMBERG TRIALS

BRITISH CASE PRESENTED INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY NUREMBERG, December 4. Great Britain’s case for the prosecution at the war crimes trial in Nuremberg was opened torday by Sir Hartley Shawcross, K.C., the British Attorney-General and chief British prosecutor. The 20 Nazis accused are charged by Britain with crimes against the peace, count No. 2 of the indictment. Among the many documents to be produced by the prosecution are certified copies of treaties which the accused are stated to have broken. , Sir Hartley, in his opening address, based his arguments on the assertion that wars of aggression were criminal acts at the time the Nazis launched the war. Aggressive wars, he said, had become illegal in the eyes of the nations. “The British Empire has been twice victorious in wars which were forced on us within the space of one generation,” said Sir Hartley, “but it is precisely because we realise that victory is not enough, and the rule of international law unachievable by a strong arm alone, that the British nation is taking part in this trial. There are those who would, perhaps, say that these wretched men should be dealt with •summarily without trial by executive action, that their personal power for evil is broken, and that they should be swept aside into oblivion without this elaborate, careful investigation into the part they have played in plunging the world into war. But that is not the British Empire’s view. Not so, would the rule of law be raised and strengthened on the international as well as the municipal plane. Not so would future generations reqlise that right is not always on the side of big battalions.” Sir Hartley said that, ineffective though sanctions had proved themselves, the world had sought to make aggressive war -an international erime, and although previous tradition sought to punish States rather than individuals, it was both logical and right that, ’if the act of waging war itself was an offence against international law, those individuals who shared personal responsibility for bringing it about should answer personally for the course into which they had led their States. Individual war crimes had long been regarded by international law as triable by the Courts .of those nations whose nationals had been outraged, at least as long as a state of war persisted. He added: “It would indeed be illogical in the extreme if those who, although they may not by their own hands have committed individual crimes, were responsible for systematic breaches of the laws of war affect- | ing the nationals of so many States, should escape.” Sir H. Shawcross quoted from file on the reconstruction of the German navy in September, 1938, which stated that Germany could only secure colonial possessions and the ocean communications necessary to constitute her a world power, with the consent of Britain and France, which was unlikely to be achieved peacefully, therefore preparations must be made for war. War against England meant war against the Empire, against France, and probably against Russia; in fact, against half or third of the world. Sir Hartley described Germany s ATTACK ON RUSSIA as the most blatant of all Nazi frauds because when Ribbentrop said the step was taken because the Red Army was threatening the German borders. He was in possession of a report from the German Ambassador at Moscow saying: “Stalin and JVlolotov, who are alone responsible for Russian foreign policy, are doing everything to avoid conflict with Germany.” He quoted records from a conference in Berlin at which it was stated: “War can only be continued if all our armed forces are fed out of Russia in the third year. Many million Russians will starve to death when we take from their country the things necessary for us.” Prisoners who had sat stolidly throughout the earlier passages of Shawcross’s address, came to life during the afternoon when the British prosecutor referred to actual aggressions. There was excited nodding of heads and much note-taking. The faces of the prisoners fell perceptibly when Sir Hartley explained that although Britain and France declared war on Germany, it was througn Germany’s attack against a nation which' Britain and France were committed to support. The Tribunal adjourned. “THIRD DEGREE” ALLEGED (Recd. 10 a.m.) FRANKFURT, December 4. Two of forty Germans on trial for the Dachau atrocities complained to the Court to-day that American officers maltreated them during thjp interrogation. Alfred Kramer (not related to the Eelsen commandant), said he was under questioning for seven hours, but maintained his conscience was clear. American officers then beat him with sticks and rubber hoses until he broke down. Doctor Anton Witteler, chief physician at Dachau, said that after a foodless day, Americans questioned • him for over seven hours and repeatedly yelled at him “Swine, liar, murderer I and criminal,” after which they made him stand under a glaring spotlight, for six hours. GUARD EXECUTED

(Rec. 11 a.m.) LONDON, Dec. 4. Erich Toddel, 31, former dairyman and Belsen camp guard, was executed to-day for killing a Polish girl. A Military Court sentenced Toddel to death before the Belsen trial was held, but. the execution was postponed. At the Belsen trial he was found guilty of kicking prisoners to death and killing a sick man with a length of iron piping and sentenced to forced labour for life. Norwegian - sentenced OSLO, December 4. A special Court fofind William Hagelin, Quisling’s Minister of the Interior, guilty of treason and sentenced him to death and ordered the confiscation of part of his fortune to cover Court and other costs.